This is an expression of how I’ve been thinking about the first Mishna. It goes into more detail than my previous post. It does not propose to explain what the Mishna is about. Instead, I propose to explain what I have been thinking about.
1. From when are we to perform the Shema recital in the evening?
2. “From the hour that the Kohanim move to eat their Teruma; until the end of the first of the [night’s three] watches.” – teaches Rabbi Eliezer.
3. The majority of Rabbi’s teach, “Until the middle of the night.”
4. Rabbi Gamliel teaches, “Until the ‘pillar of dawn’ is seen.”
5. When the children of Rabbi Gamliel returned home from a [wedding] celebration [after midnight] they asked their father what to do. He said, “If the ‘pillar of dawn’ had not risen, the Shema must still be performed.”
6. “And moreso, wherever the majority taught ‘until midnight’, the law is until the ‘pillar of dawn’, including the ‘keter, chalavim, & evarim‘, or ‘nechal leyom echad’ [re. temple sacrifices].
7. Why did the majority say ‘until midnight?’ To help people not miss the time (i.e. err).
I read the Mishna as an interplay of context and argument. It is important, to follow my meaning, that these be comprehended at each stage. The context of a point is a constellation of emphases. The argument of a point are the trajectories conducted between those anchor points. The context of a point are the hashtags that describe the genre(s) being considered, and not the specific ways in which they are being argued. The argument of a point are the way the specifics are being moved around, irrespective of any meta-context.
I will first dissect context for the first point “From when are we to perform the Shema in the evening?” #time, #core-faith, #evening-epoch, #question, #obligation. The argument here is literal.
2. Context: #sacrifices, #start, #end, #point-of-agreement, #epoch. Argument: Moves from question to answer with point of agreement, then elaborates into first point of dissension, starts with strictest point of dissension, defines first answer (Termuma) with element that chains from Korban (per chain of zchut from brit mila until korban, see Ramban on korban capara), also being an element that makes problematic the latter point of beit hamishte (see Mishna Teruma on drunkeness, i.e. that it invalidates).
3. Context: #end, #epoch, #majority. Argument: Moves from one answer into a more lenient one, from one individual into majority, from an epoch defined by a communal feature into one that is absolute.
4. Context: #end, #epoch, #singular. Argument: Moves into yet more lenient answer, from majority to individual, from epoch defined by absolute nature to subjective/observation, that is also from epoch that is static to one that is unfolding.
5. Context: #celebration, #new-life, #moral-landscape, #intergenerational-discussion, #compromise. Argument: Moves from last answer into dilemma, from absolute piety into apparent compromise, from theory into practise, from personal opinion into communal holding.
6. Context: #intergenerational-reflection, #interpretation, #sacrifices. Argument: Moves from ruling into general principle, from living examples to past relevance (i.e. sacrifices from temple that no longer stands, cf. point #2), presumes connection between majority/absolute/static and singular/subjective/unfolding.
7. Context: #explanations, #moral-duty, #duty-of-ruling. Argument: Moves from vague and unexplained ruling to explanation and compassion.
The point of all this
Is threefold. First, to give some background to my previous post on this Mishna. Second, to propose another layer of a method for approaching the Mishna in general. Third, to provide a background for a potential third post, explaining my specific understanding of this Mishna per its genius authorship, and per the need to write down the unwritable in order to preserve the divine spark that was transmitted from Moses and needed to be able to survive the terrors and challenges of exile.
On that second point, I am fond of Levinas:
analyses that never lose themselves in generalities but return to the examples – resisting invariable conceptual entities
Part of the Jewish genius I see as the ability to use the specific to carry the general, without ever dissolving into the general. I think that one method that takes advantage of this synthesis, is partially illustrated above, and involves seeking inspiration from the text, then re-reading the text’s specifics, and repeating, over and over, seeing if one can stand still without losing hold of either.
One must always demetaphorize the very metaphors by which one has just demetaphorized the metaphors.
The Mishna (seems to) concludes: One must recite Shema from the time that the Kohanim would enter to eat their Teruma, and that one fulfils their evening obligation of recitation, so long as one does so before first light, but it is better to make the recitation before midnight.
